In my experience, Apple fanboys are the ones claiming that their company produces unique items that no other company in the world could possibly do, and thus should get patents on them. Android fanboys have other hobby horses, like "openness uber alles". I can't recall ever having seen Android fanboys defending Google's patents (not to mention that, prior to Motorola, Google pretty much had none, at least in the mobile area).
Who cares? "Did it first" isn't enough of a justification to get a patent. A patent not only has to be novel, it also has to be non-obvious. Everything was done by someone first. If that was the sole requirement for justifying patents, we wouldn't have the non-obvious requirement. Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars.
No, it's not. You're missing the most important distinguishing feature of a corporation. Corporations are not "nothing but a convenient way to get together and be organized"; Corporations are convenient ways to get together and be organised and to limit the liability of each participant. The primary liability limited is meant to be financial, sure, but in practice (with very few exceptions) financial penalties are the only sort ever levelled against corporations anyway. Even in cases of gross criminal conduct, the people composing a corporation are rarely charged, and when they are, it is usually the agents hired to run the joint effort (executives) not the people that actually compose the corporation (shareholders).
From context, it was pretty obvious what the OP meant was "modified from the original intentions by the user", not "remotely compromised from some sort of nefarious evil-doer". You might as well say that if the car's engine, or brakes, or steering can be modified, you're not gonna sit in the car - they're all far more dangerous, and have been modifiable (and breakable) by anyone who pops the hood or jacks up the car since the start of automotive history.
I imagine that that's designed for commercial uses. All the references to it on their site are surrounded by references to analytics, not really something the average user cares about.
Think of the Cathedrals - built over generations as monuments to nonsense
Despite religious trappings, the cathedrals were really built for the same reason as any other monument - to reflect the greatness of their builders/funders/patrons. Really, they were just an older version of the space race, or the "who has the largest skyscraper" ongoing competition.
As to why we don't do so well with cancer or SETI, I'd say it's because we don't know they can succeed. Building a big tall building, or getting a man on the moon first, these are all firm, objective goals. We don't even know if it's possible to cure cancer, or if extra terrestrials actually exist (outside of some theoretical statistical models). It's hard to get people enthusiastic when they ask "when will it be done?" and you answer "um, we're not actually sure if it ever will be".
That's copyright. Patent terms have held (more or less) steady, although the time taken to develop these "inventions" has generally dropped off significantly.
Because patents are only temporary? Remember also that patents were instituted back before the rapid development of stuff like the tech industry became so commonplace; a twenty-year head start was more reasonable then, whereas now new developments are often obsoleted before their patent terms expire.
Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started.
To be fair, it's also designed to encourage people to reveal how they accomplished what they've been doing since the Enlightenment started, so that the rest of society can benefit from their research. Of course, given how much research it takes to "invent" rounded corners, slide to unlock, and phone number regexes, I think Apple's patents have probably collectively saved civilization maybe an hour.
Get into some entrepreneurial education program, learn how to do a business plan and where to find investors, or put something up on kickstarter
And fail, like 95% of those projects do. Entrepreneuring is the game of either the young or the rich; the young don't have enough commitments to make the risk really hurt, and the rich have enough assets to absorb the shock. If you're middle-aged, with a mortgage, and high ongoing costs in regard to the maintenance of your family, the risk just isn't worth it.
I don't know, I think there should be a reasonable protection for authors and their worlds/characters. For instance, Rowlings should be able to publish her Harry Potter series, without other authors spewing out "Harry Potter and the...." knockoffs between books in order to capitalize on her work. Although I agree copyright shouldn't be used for those purposes - the correct tool, I think, is a trademark.
And I imagine it'd be pretty easy for a piece of fan fiction, which is generally distributed for free, digitally, on fan-fiction sites, that it has little chance of being confused with the real thing (given as trademarks are supposed to be there to address customer confusion).
You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence?
He's not alleging anything. He's describing systemic corruption, not some incident specific to this case. U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy, rather than the electorate. This means that without some lobby with money, there's no reason to change the status quo, unless it's an election year, or it's something that's really riling large segments of the population.
Why do you think there's so much movement behind "piracy", and so little behind patent reform? Because there's a lobby splashing money around for copyright reform, whereas all the guys with money have already bought into the patent system.
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption.
Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.
Personally, I think the fault's still on the government in these sort of cases. They need to develop more of a spine - negotiate a better deal with the companies when they move in, including penalty rates for moving again soon after, or whatever. The problem is, the states/cities are all chasing after the business, which puts it into a buyer's market.
At least part of it, I think, is the usual problem with government - the bureaucrats who make all the decisions are using other people's money to do so, and aren't really accountable for its use. As long as they get the big splash of attracting the company, the amount it actually costs lost in the hype.
which is accessible via subway but not too friendly for people driving cars who have to contend with lots of traffic and parking hassles.
This sounds like they are doing it for their citizens, who are working at these companies. That sounds like a reasonable function of government. What, government should only pay for roads if they lead to businesses started by native citizens?
I'm the first to argue against any form of government subsidy (and tax, for that matter) but maintaining a road system sounds like one of the fundamental things citizens would expect the government to do with their money.
Well, it depends. If the target was a person who'd been instrumental behind, say, mandatory sentencing for drug possession, I'd be all for it. It's basically a way of showing the people who make these decisions the practical ramifications of them - because they either cannot understand basic logic, or don't care because they don't think it will apply to them.
Likewise, if this was targeting, say, a participating ISP's CEO, or the family of an RIAA exec, I'd be all for it. They're introducing a process that punishes people while circumventing due process. Let's see it bite them in the ass a few times, like it will everyone else.
I've heard the term before, but not for a while. When I used to hear it, it was a dig at the intelligence of GUI users, as opposed to people who used the CLI. Since the GUI's become so dominant, I haven't heard it nearly so much. Looks like the OP's a recessive.
Unless you think it's appropriate that I walk up to your sister/wife/mother and hold them down, use my legs to forcefully spread theirs and then start pressing my penis against them.
Is this after my sister/wife/mother has invited you to her home for your sex, and after you've woken up next to them after sleeping with them all night? You're little example is significantly distorting the facts.
No, they are alleged until they're confirmed in a court of law. And no, he's not charged with rape, because at the moment, he's not charged with anything. He's being extradited to answer questions regarding an alleged rape, not to answer charges. Because for some reason, the Swedes need him physically in the country to do so - a telephone's not good enough.
Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.
Surface flush with display, you say? Thin, you say? What genius conceived these ideas? They must immediately be protected with government monopoly powers in order to encourage further acts of such divine design!
Except that what they're arguing about isn't actual critical thinking. It's some program to which people have attached the label "critical thinking" so as to market it better, and stem opposition. Same idea as calling your political policy the "Against People Who Hate America Act" or some such, while its contents are about giving media owners a private police force.
Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe.
Way to read the post. I didn't suggest my table infringed. I said that it was evidence of rounded corners existing prior to the iPad, and that Apple wasn't especially innovative or distinctive in its design.
Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.
Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?
Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.
It would be equally nice if the rabid Apple fanboys could pull their heads out of Steve Jobs' decaying sphincter long enough to realize that their idol is patenting the bloody obvious, in an attempt to monopolize the market.
No, I quite appreciate the value of good design. The iDevices show the sort of aesthetic that a lot of tech people have been advocating for ages: simple, minimalistic. I actually have no problem with protecting distinctive designs, but the problem with a simple, minimalistic design is that it's all about removing extraneous detail. A minimalistic design doesn't make a product more distinct, it makes it more generic. And when you start protecting features of a generic design, it begins to impact large swathes of products, because a perfectly minimalistic design is one that only has the essential qualities required, which means those qualities will, of necessity, be duplicated across all other similar products.
So, yes. Design can be innovative. I'd even go so far as to say the iPod's wheel interface might have fit that category. But this lot of designs? No way.
It's SOLE purpose is to prevent somebody from BLATENTLY COPYING a DESIGN so consumers are not misled into buying a fake something.
No, it's not. If it were, it would be about trademarks or trade dress. This is about a design patent. Design patents aren't to protect customers from consumers; they're to encourage improvements of industrial design by rewarding people who make novel, non-obvious progress in the area of design.
If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?
They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.
The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.
suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious
No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.
putting in some real work
Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, Apple fanboys are the ones claiming that their company produces unique items that no other company in the world could possibly do, and thus should get patents on them. Android fanboys have other hobby horses, like "openness uber alles". I can't recall ever having seen Android fanboys defending Google's patents (not to mention that, prior to Motorola, Google pretty much had none, at least in the mobile area).
Who cares? "Did it first" isn't enough of a justification to get a patent. A patent not only has to be novel, it also has to be non-obvious. Everything was done by someone first. If that was the sole requirement for justifying patents, we wouldn't have the non-obvious requirement. Just because Henry Ford made his cars in black didn't mean the first guy to paint one blue got a patent on blue cars.
No, it's not. You're missing the most important distinguishing feature of a corporation. Corporations are not "nothing but a convenient way to get together and be organized"; Corporations are convenient ways to get together and be organised and to limit the liability of each participant. The primary liability limited is meant to be financial, sure, but in practice (with very few exceptions) financial penalties are the only sort ever levelled against corporations anyway. Even in cases of gross criminal conduct, the people composing a corporation are rarely charged, and when they are, it is usually the agents hired to run the joint effort (executives) not the people that actually compose the corporation (shareholders).
From context, it was pretty obvious what the OP meant was "modified from the original intentions by the user", not "remotely compromised from some sort of nefarious evil-doer". You might as well say that if the car's engine, or brakes, or steering can be modified, you're not gonna sit in the car - they're all far more dangerous, and have been modifiable (and breakable) by anyone who pops the hood or jacks up the car since the start of automotive history.
I imagine that that's designed for commercial uses. All the references to it on their site are surrounded by references to analytics, not really something the average user cares about.
Think of the Cathedrals - built over generations as monuments to nonsense
Despite religious trappings, the cathedrals were really built for the same reason as any other monument - to reflect the greatness of their builders/funders/patrons. Really, they were just an older version of the space race, or the "who has the largest skyscraper" ongoing competition.
As to why we don't do so well with cancer or SETI, I'd say it's because we don't know they can succeed. Building a big tall building, or getting a man on the moon first, these are all firm, objective goals. We don't even know if it's possible to cure cancer, or if extra terrestrials actually exist (outside of some theoretical statistical models). It's hard to get people enthusiastic when they ask "when will it be done?" and you answer "um, we're not actually sure if it ever will be".
That's copyright. Patent terms have held (more or less) steady, although the time taken to develop these "inventions" has generally dropped off significantly.
Because patents are only temporary? Remember also that patents were instituted back before the rapid development of stuff like the tech industry became so commonplace; a twenty-year head start was more reasonable then, whereas now new developments are often obsoleted before their patent terms expire.
Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started.
To be fair, it's also designed to encourage people to reveal how they accomplished what they've been doing since the Enlightenment started, so that the rest of society can benefit from their research. Of course, given how much research it takes to "invent" rounded corners, slide to unlock, and phone number regexes, I think Apple's patents have probably collectively saved civilization maybe an hour.
Get into some entrepreneurial education program, learn how to do a business plan and where to find investors, or put something up on kickstarter
And fail, like 95% of those projects do. Entrepreneuring is the game of either the young or the rich; the young don't have enough commitments to make the risk really hurt, and the rich have enough assets to absorb the shock. If you're middle-aged, with a mortgage, and high ongoing costs in regard to the maintenance of your family, the risk just isn't worth it.
I don't know, I think there should be a reasonable protection for authors and their worlds/characters. For instance, Rowlings should be able to publish her Harry Potter series, without other authors spewing out "Harry Potter and the ...." knockoffs between books in order to capitalize on her work. Although I agree copyright shouldn't be used for those purposes - the correct tool, I think, is a trademark.
And I imagine it'd be pretty easy for a piece of fan fiction, which is generally distributed for free, digitally, on fan-fiction sites, that it has little chance of being confused with the real thing (given as trademarks are supposed to be there to address customer confusion).
You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence?
He's not alleging anything. He's describing systemic corruption, not some incident specific to this case. U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy, rather than the electorate. This means that without some lobby with money, there's no reason to change the status quo, unless it's an election year, or it's something that's really riling large segments of the population.
Why do you think there's so much movement behind "piracy", and so little behind patent reform? Because there's a lobby splashing money around for copyright reform, whereas all the guys with money have already bought into the patent system.
You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption.
Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.
Personally, I think the fault's still on the government in these sort of cases. They need to develop more of a spine - negotiate a better deal with the companies when they move in, including penalty rates for moving again soon after, or whatever. The problem is, the states/cities are all chasing after the business, which puts it into a buyer's market.
At least part of it, I think, is the usual problem with government - the bureaucrats who make all the decisions are using other people's money to do so, and aren't really accountable for its use. As long as they get the big splash of attracting the company, the amount it actually costs lost in the hype.
which is accessible via subway but not too friendly for people driving cars who have to contend with lots of traffic and parking hassles.
This sounds like they are doing it for their citizens, who are working at these companies. That sounds like a reasonable function of government. What, government should only pay for roads if they lead to businesses started by native citizens?
I'm the first to argue against any form of government subsidy (and tax, for that matter) but maintaining a road system sounds like one of the fundamental things citizens would expect the government to do with their money.
Well, it depends. If the target was a person who'd been instrumental behind, say, mandatory sentencing for drug possession, I'd be all for it. It's basically a way of showing the people who make these decisions the practical ramifications of them - because they either cannot understand basic logic, or don't care because they don't think it will apply to them.
Likewise, if this was targeting, say, a participating ISP's CEO, or the family of an RIAA exec, I'd be all for it. They're introducing a process that punishes people while circumventing due process. Let's see it bite them in the ass a few times, like it will everyone else.
I've heard the term before, but not for a while. When I used to hear it, it was a dig at the intelligence of GUI users, as opposed to people who used the CLI. Since the GUI's become so dominant, I haven't heard it nearly so much. Looks like the OP's a recessive.
Unless you think it's appropriate that I walk up to your sister/wife/mother and hold them down, use my legs to forcefully spread theirs and then start pressing my penis against them.
Is this after my sister/wife/mother has invited you to her home for your sex, and after you've woken up next to them after sleeping with them all night? You're little example is significantly distorting the facts.
No, they are alleged until they're confirmed in a court of law. And no, he's not charged with rape, because at the moment, he's not charged with anything. He's being extradited to answer questions regarding an alleged rape, not to answer charges. Because for some reason, the Swedes need him physically in the country to do so - a telephone's not good enough.
Let's see: there's the flat, flush surface with the display, the thinness, the sides with rectangular corners (imagine, not rounded) on the top and the curved ones on the bottom.
Surface flush with display, you say? Thin, you say? What genius conceived these ideas? They must immediately be protected with government monopoly powers in order to encourage further acts of such divine design!
Except that what they're arguing about isn't actual critical thinking. It's some program to which people have attached the label "critical thinking" so as to market it better, and stem opposition. Same idea as calling your political policy the "Against People Who Hate America Act" or some such, while its contents are about giving media owners a private police force.
I don't think ordinances are very conductive
Jesus H Christ, the patent isn't just on rounded corners, you simpleton. Rounded corners _are a part_ of the design patent. One piece. There are other parts that _when all used together_ constitutes infringement. Did your dinning room table copy all the design elements of an iPad? Did your TV? No. So of course they don't infringe.
Way to read the post. I didn't suggest my table infringed. I said that it was evidence of rounded corners existing prior to the iPad, and that Apple wasn't especially innovative or distinctive in its design.
Anyone who thinks this is just about "rounded corners" is either stupid or ignorant. It's about _the entire design_ which includes, as one part, rounded corners.
Behold, Apple's design patent in all it's glory. Tell me, of those four images that compose the entirety of that patent, which shows something more than "rectangular, round corners"?
Now, feel free to mod me troll all you want but it would be nice if everyone who's simplifying this situation to "RAWR!!! Rounded corners!! RAWR!!!" could pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually recognize that a company is blatantly and outright copying the design of a competitor who has a patent protecting that design.
It would be equally nice if the rabid Apple fanboys could pull their heads out of Steve Jobs' decaying sphincter long enough to realize that their idol is patenting the bloody obvious, in an attempt to monopolize the market.
No, I quite appreciate the value of good design. The iDevices show the sort of aesthetic that a lot of tech people have been advocating for ages: simple, minimalistic. I actually have no problem with protecting distinctive designs, but the problem with a simple, minimalistic design is that it's all about removing extraneous detail. A minimalistic design doesn't make a product more distinct, it makes it more generic. And when you start protecting features of a generic design, it begins to impact large swathes of products, because a perfectly minimalistic design is one that only has the essential qualities required, which means those qualities will, of necessity, be duplicated across all other similar products.
So, yes. Design can be innovative. I'd even go so far as to say the iPod's wheel interface might have fit that category. But this lot of designs? No way.
It's SOLE purpose is to prevent somebody from BLATENTLY COPYING a DESIGN so consumers are not misled into buying a fake something.
No, it's not. If it were, it would be about trademarks or trade dress. This is about a design patent. Design patents aren't to protect customers from consumers; they're to encourage improvements of industrial design by rewarding people who make novel, non-obvious progress in the area of design.
If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?
They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.
The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs
That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.
suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious
No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.
putting in some real work
Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.